| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1Fox_ReeveheartJun 26, 2015 17:11:50 | Of course I know some of the warlord got folded into the "battlemaster" fighter. Which is nice and all but it doesn't seem enough of the warlord to make me want to go fighter. I loved the 4th edition warlord, it was a armored cheerleader that could hold his/her own in a fight and make others do better as well. I also miss non-magical healing.
The "paths" he could take are easily still just the tactical and inspiring routes but you just won't be using dedicated CHA or INT into your build. Of course that is one suggestion, a entirely different approach could be taken. Maybe a fighter class that actually uses INT? Would be interesting to see at the least.
All I can think of so far
Hit dice: 1D10 HP: 10+con mod first level, 5+con mod each level after Weapons: All weapons Armor: Light, Medium, Shields Skills: Choose 3 from the following list: Athletics, History, Intimidation, Persuasion, Nature
and of course I can't think of everything off the top of my head as I currently don't have a PHB on hand, and of course I would also grab a 4e PHB for reference. |
| #2arnwolf666Jun 26, 2015 18:05:06 | Why do we keep wanting to call this class Warlord. Warlords are these nasty tyrants in third world countries. Brutal dictators that rule by might. How about something nice like Marshal, Commander, Officer, Director, CEO, or Master Planner. Well master planner wouldn't work for the charisma based. Okay the Master Planner can be the int based archetype, the charisma based could be the demagogue (another term never used for good guys.
I've never known a nice warlord, and several have tried to kill me. Just don't like these guys. Luckily a ninja has never tried to kill me... i think. Well if he did he wasn't a very good ninja. |
| #3Fox_ReeveheartJun 26, 2015 18:32:59 |
|
| #4CCSJun 26, 2015 19:25:34 | Additionally it just seems a silly name without the XP to back it up.
. 1st lv adventurer joins group: "Hi! I'm a Warlord!" Group: Sure you are..... . And the warlords signiture power - non-magical healing via issuing commands - is sillier than its presumptuous name. |
| #5arnwolf666Jun 26, 2015 19:49:22 | Whatever we name it, I am all for a intelligent or charisma based warrior class. Maybe even a wisdom based archetype too. |
| #6arnwolf666Jun 26, 2015 19:53:17 | I think the class should definitely be along the lines of: d10 hp 2 attacks at 5th level Proficient in Constitution saves and one additional mental attribute depending on archetype. So archetype would be determined at first level with this new class. Let's build from their. I would say they have no fighting styles, but leadership styles or something of the sort. |
| #7MechaPilotJun 26, 2015 20:03:40 | I think it's fine for the warlord to have a fighting style. Look to the paladin: it has abilities that buff its allies, it can heal, and it is a combat-oriented character. |
| #8HebitsuikazaJun 26, 2015 21:52:26 | I agree the class needs a new name.
Also, I think it would be far more reasonable for the class to have D8 hit points as it should be far more similar to the Cleric without gods or a Bard without music, but creating similar in-game effects to some of what those classes do
Abilities can be strong, but should be MAD. And the trick would be to create it in such a way that it can be crafted either as a Charisma-based character with good physical stats or an Intelligence-based character with good pysical stats.
|
| (Reply to #4)Lord_Ventnor |
|
| #10AcrilosJun 27, 2015 0:43:38 |
|
| #11rampantJun 27, 2015 1:09:51 | I would tie it into the HD system though. So a warlord can improve the party's ability to utilize HD but can't magically make somehtign out of nothing.
I'd also think insight would be more important than nature for the skills, and maybe perception. Awareness and people skills are essential.
I dislike the combat styls just as a general rule, because shoehorning people into a limited weapon load out is annoying, especially in the case of classes like the fighter were they are supposed ot be versatile, and doubly especially at level freaking 2, before they get a chance to try things out.
I don't know if dual attacks is appropriate for a warlord, I mean if we're building this to the level fo the other 5e classes we need a solid at-will action, and until we have a better idea of what that is going to be, dual attack is likely more of an incoveniance than a useful place holder. You'll notice the dual attack classes genereally have soem other form of bonus damage to go with it.
What if we use somethign like this?
Call the Shots: As a free action you may designate one target within 60 ft that you can see. The first Ally that damages that target before the end of your turn deals X extra damage.
I think the d8 Hp is more suited but d10 isn;t the ened of the world, also the average for a d10 is 6 not 5.
I think the wepaons should read all simple and martial wepaons since if they do introduce an exotic/special weapon category it would probably be innapropriate for the warlord to have auto-prof with them. |
| #12Thoughts_My_AimJun 27, 2015 3:44:05 | I might be inclined to suggest that the warlord would function best as a fighter archetype, it would save reinventing the wheel when half of their abilities are likely to be weapon attacks anyway. I agree that tying them to hit dice is probably a good way to go. |
| #13masterfat78Jun 27, 2015 7:05:32 |
|
| (Reply to #12)arnwolf666 |
|
| #15rampantJun 27, 2015 9:01:12 | The problem is that the fighter base class is the antithesis of a warlord in many ways. The core mec hanics are so focused on the fighter himself that there's just not much design space left for teamwork and command.
You could make a commanding fighter archetype. But it wouldn't be a dedicated leader. |
| #16Fox_ReeveheartJun 27, 2015 9:14:35 |
|
| #17HebitsuikazaJun 27, 2015 10:48:53 | It isn't worth trying to build anything off of the Fighter class. The class is designed to be as simple as imaginable. It would be far better to try to build off of the Cleric, Bard or Paladin which all are closer to the end result you probably want to reach.
People want to overcomplicate things in terms of "realism", but there are no complaints about having to include magic for a warrior to jump 20 feet in full gear and armor or how weapons can move through enemy bodies to strike others or Fighters tapping into the speed force allowing the to act twice on some turns and ultimately swing their weapon many, many more times per a second than they used tobe able to do-- even though based on physics that shouldn't remotely be possible.
It is best to keep the rules simple and not worry about things. Where exactly + bonuses or advantage are coming from in the game is not always entirely clear, and the whole concept of hit point is ludicrous on its face-- precisely what exactly do you imagine they could possibly represent that would allow someone to fight with full power and ability right up until they point they hit "0" at which point they immediately crumple to the ground. That really can't be any single resource. Therefore, the idea that solidifying a person's will and either encouraging them or threatening them to continue to work once their individual will has been drained is not at all beyond comprehension. And the mechanical way of expressing that would be to restore hit points.
But things like granting advantage on attacks or giving disadvantage to any attackers who try to target an ally, of granting a flat bonus to a skill check or save....
There are plenty of mechanics tied up in Cleric spells that you could pretty much just rip right out of their trappings and apply. It just can't be done as often on the same level the Cleric does it since the Cleric is likely paying a higher cost for the ability.
And you could certainly hedge your bet for those who are stubborn dolts......
Sure, the abilities are "magic" or "psychic"-- even a mix. It is tapping into some sort of divinity that exists within all souls and increasing its power, utilizing latent psychic powers they are unaware of in order to improve other's capacities and abilities. They raise the spirits and steel the minds of their compatriots while focused on keeping an eye on the big picture in the situation and shouting warnings and pointing out openings to allies.
Instead of thinking it as a Fighter+, it would be better to think of it like a Bard but without the stealth, thievery skills, access to wide knowledge networks, arcane trickery and illusions or musical instruments, but instead trade all that in for marginally better equipment options and an improved ability to boost morale and improve stats. |
| #18DiffanJun 27, 2015 11:22:31 | Hebitsuikaza, you're awesome! As for the name, I'm personally not married to it and think any host of other names work too but the warlord has history with the 4e crowed and it resonates with us so we might as well keep it |
| (Reply to #17)arnwolf666 |
|
| (Reply to #8)CCS |
|
| (Reply to #10)CCS |
|
| #22HebitsuikazaJun 27, 2015 13:54:34 |
|
| #23HebitsuikazaJun 27, 2015 13:59:00 |
|
| (Reply to #21)Satyrn |
|
| #25Fox_ReeveheartJun 27, 2015 14:54:52 |
|
| #26MechatarrasqueJun 27, 2015 15:46:27 | I think psychic is the best way to do warlord. It isn't magical, but it is different/special enough that people whose sensabilities about "realism" shouldn't be worried anymore, since it is "psychic", not "real." For psychics, the benefit is that this is something that isn't "wizard lite" or "extrasuperpowerful wizard (times 10)."
The lazylord becomes the "mindwitch" subclass of psychic (since Mike Mearls says that, if we get psychics, it won't be with the pseudo-scientific names) and could also include the notion of de-motivator, which I believe was contemplated for the warlord. [Off topic, the "poltergiest" subclass would entail being able to generate an invisible psychic shadow that you could use to move things as though a person were physically moving it. I haven't figured out a good idea for a "firestarter" subclass yet.] |
| #27rampantJun 27, 2015 17:44:25 | The problem with using bard cleric or paladin isn't so much the magic itself as the complete overhaul you'd have to do tot the spell lists and basic class features. Especially witht he paladin who like the fighter is a very damage oriented character who focuses a lot on personal power, though maybe not to the same extent as a fighter or barbarian. Just about any class could have a leader sub-class, but very few could pull off a dedicated tactical leader build without major changes or spell list inflations. Maybe the bard, maybe.
As to thte OP I advise not worrying about sub-classes until you have a basic core class layout, and even then assigning one to be offensive vs. defensive is ... limiting, I'd advise letting the core class take shape a bit first. |
| #28arnwolf666Jun 27, 2015 19:13:35 | You can really see in this thread that D&D is a game of words. The wrong word for a class or ability completely ruins the feel for a class. Same thing for building settings. Descriptors are a very important part of the game. I think misplaced or poorly thought words and descriptors can destroy a game faster than bad math and mechanics. An example I give is in 2E, I have no trouble having people wanting to play a thief. And I think the thief has always until 5E (not sure about 4E) been the true weak underpowered class. But lots of people still loved playing it.
On another note. I picture more of a drill seargeant or field commander of some type. I think just reskinning a class is a mistake. I think it needs to play as simple as battlemaster without the complexities of spellcasting. I almost think a new class needs a new mechanic or goog variation on an existing mechanic to give it flavor and a different feel. I am not hardset on this, just a feeling. |
| #29Captain_KoboldJun 28, 2015 2:39:49 | If you played a Cleric or Bard, were careful about their spell picks, and allowed that character's spells to function in an antimagic zone, what mechanical capabilities of the Warlord class would that character lack? |
| #30HebitsuikazaJun 28, 2015 5:24:05 |
|
| #31edwin_suJun 28, 2015 9:15:42 |
|
| #32Thoughts_My_AimJun 28, 2015 9:41:21 | I think that's how I'd do it as well. Although to be fair, doing it any other way wouldn't increase the amount of healing available any more than the existence of a cleric or a bard. |
| #33rampantJun 28, 2015 11:37:58 | I'd also use a warlord to increase the efficiency of HD healing, maybe add the warlord's cha modifier? |
| #34Chameleon-XJun 28, 2015 11:50:07 | |
| #35arnwolf666Jun 28, 2015 12:19:30 | I would allow the warlord to allow the person to spend a number of hit dice equal to his charism modifier. One Hit dice really isn't jack at the higher levels. |
| #36Tony_VargasJun 28, 2015 12:34:43 |
|
| (Reply to #34)arnwolf666 |
|
| (Reply to #36)arnwolf666 |
|
| #39DiffanJun 28, 2015 17:32:03 | The fact is in the context of D&D, a Warlord is far different than a RL evil dictator. What that name invokes a majority of the time is what the 4e warlord did (enable his party to be better via movement, granting attacks and, yes, even heal them). Now if they came out with a Commander or Marshal or Tactician class that did the same thing I wouldn't care but the Warlord works just as well . |
| (Reply to #35)Diffan |
|
| #41rampantJun 28, 2015 19:21:38 | Um ... hardly.
The warlord's focus was on enabling, it had healing certainly but even in 4e the cleric was a better healer. A 5e warlord should simialrly focus on enabling because that's kind of the integral unicque function that they have going for them. |
| (Reply to #2)DoctorBadWolf |
|
| (Reply to #42)arnwolf666 |
|
| #44masterfat78Jun 29, 2015 12:51:02 |
|
| (Reply to #43)DoctorBadWolf |
|
| #46Tony_VargasJun 29, 2015 22:55:15 |
|
| (Reply to #46)Diffan |
|
| #48Captain_KoboldJun 30, 2015 11:48:16 |
|
| #49UngeheuerLichJul 01, 2015 4:43:28 | I would just create a warlord fighting style for the fighter. - it allows you to grant your action point to an ally as a reaction. - it allows your second wind to be used on an ally. - it may grants your charisma bonus to hit points recovered and it bonus to initiative. This would serve as a warlord in my opinion. The rest comes from battlemaster and feats. |
| #50rampantJul 01, 2015 7:28:42 | 1. Battlemaster doesn't exactly have a wide array fo teamwork maneuvers, and what it does have are almost entirely limited to weapon using allies.
2. Assuming you meant subclass youc an't have two subclasses of the same class.
3. The fighter is far too set up for the front line meat grinder to make a good warlord.
4. Action surge you mean, because action points aren't an intrisic part of the fighter class. |
| #51ChrisCarlsonJul 01, 2015 8:34:20 | "We can't have teamwork without crunchy synergies to facilitate it!" - modern player adage |
| (Reply to #51)arnwolf666 |
|
| (Reply to #51)Diffan |
|
| #54ChrisCarlsonJul 02, 2015 7:25:12 |
|
| #55rampantJul 02, 2015 9:43:17 | You keep quoting this 5e way at people, stop it or show us where it this 5e way is described. |
| #56ChrisCarlsonJul 02, 2015 9:51:42 |
|
| #57rampantJul 02, 2015 9:56:04 | Qouting a page number would help a lot.
Also it's kind of an annoying way to approach the game froma homebrewer's stand point because it means that there's no point in being different or creative. |
| #58ChrisCarlsonJul 02, 2015 10:02:50 | Quote a page number related to this conversation? Okay:
PHB, pgs. 73-74 |
| #59rampantJul 02, 2015 10:08:25 | Ok good thank you, however I don't understand how battlemaster explains why 5e is less compatible with action grants than previous editions. |
| #60ChrisCarlsonJul 02, 2015 11:23:52 | Previous edition: "This class can grant an ally an off-turn attack every turn all day long."
5e: "This is how a class grants an ally an off-turn attack within 5e's system parameters." |
| (Reply to #56)Diffan |
|
| #62ChrisCarlsonJul 02, 2015 13:04:30 |
|
| (Reply to #62)Diffan |
|
| #64DiffanJul 02, 2015 15:15:39 | Also Chris, this is someone's homebrew version so why are you crapping all over it instead of either helping them achieve their goal or providing homebrew version of your own? That's SO against the the spirit of 5e its disturbing. |
| #65ZardnaarJul 02, 2015 15:36:01 | WHat I would do is get all the warlord threads in one place, pick one of the posters ideas and run with it. If you can make something half salvagable get it stickied in the player help section and direct all future threads to it.
The main problem with the 5E Warlord is if you base it on the 4 E one to much it is more powerful than the 5E classes.I would use the Paladin/Ranger concept and build on that stripping out the their abilites and adding your own. That way you can have a bit of power creep without breaking the game.
So Warlord. Hit Dice d8
Light and Medium Armor only 2 attacks at level 5. Healing Word Ability (as spell) once or twice per short rest.
And the various effects replaces spells and class abilities of Paladin/Ranger. Those classes have to give up the 3rd and 4th fighter attacks to get their abilites. Steal some of the Bard and Battlemaster fighter abilites. |
| #66ChrisCarlsonJul 02, 2015 16:03:55 |
|
| #67ChrisCarlsonJul 02, 2015 16:06:18 |
|
| (Reply to #66)Diffan |
|
| (Reply to #60)rampant |
|
| (Reply to #67)Diffan |
|